...In A Handbasket

A Letter to the Editor

2010-05-12T08:56:00.002-05:00

From:

"David LaBonte"

My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to "print" it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:

Dear Editor:

So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.

They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany , Italy , France and Japan . None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan . They were defending the United States of America as one people.

When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty , it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.

(signed)
Rosemary LaBonte

One Month to Act

2010-05-11T10:43:00.001-05:00

Last week, Behzad Soltani — deputy head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization — announced that Iran will join the world nuclear club within a month. He further claimed that:

No country would even think about attacking Iran after Iran’s membership in the club.

Iran’s leaders continue to defy the international community’s demands to stop uranium enrichment activity, and are in fact enriching more aggressively than ever before. While heads of state around the globe debate even more sanctions against Iran — none of which have worked in the past — Iran’s clerics speed toward becoming one of the most dangerous regimes on the planet.

They continue to enrich uranium at the Natanz facility (which currently has enough enriched uranium stockpiled for one nuclear bomb), while producing new centrifuges that can enrich uranium six times faster. They are increasing yellowcake production at the Gchine uranium mine. The mine currently has a design capacity of 21 tons of yellowcake per year, about half as much as is needed to produce the 55 pounds of 93% enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb.

They have a nuclear fuel facility in Isfahan capable of producing 10 tons of nuclear fuel annually, and sufficient plutonium for two nuclear weapons a year.

The Arak heavy water plant — built in violation of the nonproliferation treaty — is near its completion, though the West assumed this would not happen until 2015. This facility will be capable of producing significant amounts of bomb-grade plutonium.

As will the Bushehr nuclear power plant, which is set to go live with the help of Russia this coming summer.

At the same time, the Revolutionary Guards are making significant progress with the country’s missile delivery system, concealing their efforts within the space project they have embarked upon with North Korea. The Shahab-3 missile is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, and can currently target Tel Aviv, Riyadh, U.S. bases in Iraq, and the Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain.

The Guards’ goal is to be able to deliver a nuclear-tipped missile anywhere in Europe.

Who is to blame for Iran’s growth into a nuclear power? Sadly, it is the West — whose politicians worked tirelessly for three decades to appease the mullahs. This had the effect of buying Iran the time it needed.

Our time is now running out, and it is essential that we acknowledge our failures and take immediate action to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear state.

We must understand that a nuclear-armed Iran will not only harm the Iranian people, but will create instability throughout the world. If the leaders of Iran can currently threaten to disrupt the flow of oil, launch missiles at all U.S. bases in the region, or wipe Israel off the map, they could take the whole world hostage with nuclear weapons.

An Iran with nuclear bombs will make the leaders of Iran untouchable and empower its allies and proxies such as Syria, Hezbollah (already rearmed with thousands of Iranian rockets for a possible war with Israel), Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. Instability will rule the Middle East and have a huge impact on the world economy.

Just recently, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned the White House about the lack of a plan to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. If this is truly the case, our situation is dire indeed. One can only hope that President Obama is working to lead the world in confronting this grave and growing danger. What we do today could save millions of lives and affect how our children live for decades.

If we fail to act, future generations will never forgive us.

Violence Erupts at Illegal Immigration Rally

2010-05-03T12:41:00.002-05:00

From Sister Toldjah....

The so-called “May Day” illegal immigration rallies were conducted and attended over the weekend by mainly “amnesty” proponents who believe that the GOP “hates illegal immigrants” because the color of their skin. These crowds marched in response to the “controversial” immigration bill signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.

One such protest, held Saturday in Santa Cruz, CA, got ugly and violent – but unlike the Tea Party rallies, at which this point there has beenno violence other than the thuggery perpetrated by radical liberal union goons – the MSM is falling all over itself to explain the violence away as “maybe being by acted out by anarchists” who may have “infiltrated” the May Day rallies, etc. Dan Riehl has the details here. There is a notable contrast in how the MSM treated the May Day rallies versus how they have routinely characterized the Tea Party rallies which won’t surprise you a bit.

Michelle Malkin has much more on the angry mobs who took to the streets Saturday in order to “take back their country.” And stay tuned for Rev. Al’s upcoming Cinco de Mayo “candelight vigil” he’ll be holding while “marching” towards the Arizona state Capitol in Phoenix where he and his followers will look to sign up “freedom walkers” to “go to jail if the law goes into effect.” The photos and video from this “vigil” will be priceless ….

Everythings Amazing & Nobodys Happy

2010-05-02T22:23:00.001-05:00

I thought I'd post something a little light-heared today. This guy has a point.

What Would You Do?

2010-04-28T10:47:00.003-05:00

I heard this the other day and I think it a great simple example of a “What would you do?” scenario.

What would you do if you left the front door open to your house and one day you went into your living room and saw a family living in there? They don’t eat much from your fridge and they are quiet. Does this bother you? A few months later, there are a few more people and the one woman is giving birth to a child on your living room couch. Now you can’t get into your bathroom, your grocery bill has grown and there is a baby keeping you up all night, not to mention the pile of diapers in your front yard.

You’ve had enough, so you call the FBI, you call ICE, you call the Feds, but they never come. They ignore your plea’s for help. The frustration is building, after all, it is your house. So you call the local authorities but they tell you their hands are tied and there is nothing they can do because federal law says they can’t. You’re helpless.

You contemplate moving, perhaps taking the law into your own hands, but wait…. There is a better solution! Create a state law that says you can do the same thing the federal law does. So you do.

The next thing you see is just unbelievable… buses are pulling up in front of your home, protests are forming, people are calling you racist and they are calling for your eviction. They want to boycott your sources of income. They want to starve you and make you pay.

.... You're right. It could never happen.

Is Arizona's New Immigration Law Constitutional?

2010-04-26T22:05:00.003-05:00

We have an interesting situation developing in Arizona. Last week, the Arizona legislature passed and the governor signed a law which says, in effect, that the state will work harder to enforce the existing federal immigration laws.

The left is having a cow, of course. They are concerned that enforcing the law is racist.

"Racist." Where have we heard that before?

So the left is now crying "Unconstitutional." It is unconstitutional, according to the left, to merely enforce federal law. The constitution, by the way, does give the government the authority to set and enforce immigration policies.

Now, remember back ... ALL THE WAY BACK .... to about three weeks ago when the Health Care System Destruction Act of 2010. Remember the congressmen who said that the constitution doesn't matter? The only thing that mattered, way back then, was to make sure that all those uninsured citizens who were just dropping dead in the streets from lack of health care, got covered. They AREN'T covered, but we did get health care destruction/reform shoved down our throats. Constitutional or not.

So, now that there is an issue in which the left wants to limit the power of government, the left is crying "foul." We CAN'T ignore the constitution.

Hypocrisy? Thy name is Democrat.

Health Care Reform Lawsuit...What's Your Opinion?

2010-04-26T11:15:00.002-05:00

Before the ink was dry on the Health Care Destruction Act of 2010, several states began filing lawsuits challenging the Constitutionality of the act.

Now, there is no question that the act is unconstitutional. That's not the question. You CANNOT read the constitution (unless you are a lawyer/judge) and conclude after reading it that the federal government has ANY authority to fund health care. Of course, you would also be forced to conclude, if you REALLY thought about it, that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal funding of education and a whole host of other things the federal government does are ALSO unconstitutional.

Of course, lawyers and judges can't read.

Or so it seems. When they read something, they obviously don't read or understand it the same way that you and I do.

Where I have a problem with the Supreme Court's rulings on the constitutionality of ANYTHING is that they don't really look at the constitution and what its original intent was. They look at everything else. Previous rulings, case law, their liberal agenda, etc.

I've always looked at the constitution as a contract. The American people voted on it (in the 1700's) and it's Amendments (in the years following). What were the writers thinking it meant when they wrote it? What were the voters thinking it meant when they voted on it? There is no way the framers of the constitution envisioned our current government. In fact, our current government, and in particular, our current administration, were precisely the thing they were trying to AVOID when they wrote the document.

So, then, the question, really is this: Does this lawsuit REALLY stand a chance of succeeding. Given the liberal nature of the court and the way they tend to rule on these kinds of issues, my feeling is the Health Care Destruction bill will stand as is. I don't think the Supremes will strike it down. But I'm not a lawyer, and, frankly, I don't follow these kinds of things that closely.

What do you think?

Jobless Rate Rises

2010-04-15T09:55:00.002-05:00

For the second straight week, the jobless rate has risen, confounding liberals and the media. The recession was supposed to be over, but I guess the people who do the hiring didn't get the memo.

I "doubt" that the recent health care legislation, with its new and confusing regulations and taxes on businesses has had any impact on the business sector and their decisions to hire, not hire or even lay off employees. Of course, we know that health care reform is going to balance the budget and save everyone tons of money.

A year ago, Dick Morris (whom I respect, but don't always agree with) predicted that the jobless rate would rise in response to the Generational Theft Act (stimulus) to around 10% nationally. He also predicted that it would stay near that rate for 2010 and perhaps beyond. Furthermore, he predicted that as we move into 2010 and 2011, we would begin to see an increasing rate of inflation that would trigger a second recession before we've even recovered from the first one.

While we've yet to see a significant amount of inflation, Morris' predictions usually tend to be pretty accurate. We've already seen gas prices rise, and the price of other goods and services usually trend upwards when gas prices go up because almost everything we buy is affected by the cost of fuel.

I'm not optimistic about our future. With the passage of health care reform, it appears the recession is going to extend into the foreseeable future, despite proclamations that it is over. We might as well get used to double digit unemployment. Unless we can reverse the damage O.B.A.M.,A. has done, it is likely to become the norm. Pollsters and other experts are backing off of predictions that the Republicans will take back the House and Senate. At best, they will neutralize the Democrats' majority, but it is highly unlikely they will get enough seats to pass their own agenda, let alone repeal any of what O.B.A.M.,A. has done (including health care).

Even looking forward to 2012, prospects aren't much better. Assuming we can get a Republican back in the White House, many of the front runners (including Huckabee and Romney) are far from conservative. They are in favor of many of the same programs and spending polices of the left, just to a slightly lesser degree.

Sorry for the "negative" post, today, but given that it's April 15 (Tax Day), perhaps some honest evaluation of where we are at economically is in order.

Quote of the Day

2010-04-14T10:47:00.001-05:00

"There is nothing wrong with the younger generation that becoming taxpayers won't cure."

-- Dan Bennett

Doctor Shortages On the Way

2010-04-14T09:23:00.002-05:00

Dr. Melissa Clothier shares:

The Wall Street Journal shares this inevitable news:

The new federal health-care law has raised the stakes for hospitals and schools already scrambling to train more doctors.

Experts warn there won’t be enough doctors to treat the millions of people newly insured under the law. At current graduation and training rates, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges.

That shortfall is predicted despite a push by teaching hospitals and medical schools to boost the number of U.S. doctors, which now totals about 954,000.

The greatest demand will be for primary-care physicians. These general practitioners, internists, family physicians and pediatricians will have a larger role under the new law, coordinating care for each patient.

The U.S. has 352,908 primary-care doctors now, and the college association estimates that 45,000 more will be needed by 2020. But the number of medical-school students entering family medicine fell more than a quarter between 2002 and 2007.

A shortage of primary-care and other physicians could mean more-limited access to health care and longer wait times for patients.

The whole point of health care reform was too feel better–not you, or your health–but liberal politicians.

It wasn’t to improve health care treatment.

It wasn’t to reduce costs.

It wasn’t even to get more people under care.

Wait, what? That’s right. More people will be insured, but patients will receive less care at more cost. It’s just logical. The new health care system creates a gatekeeper system that will eliminate individual choice and drive up costs. So, a person thinks something is wrong with his prostate–he goes directly to a proctologist. That saves 1. wait time 2. cost (no double doctor fees) and 3. diagnosis time.

But not now.

Oh no! Now, a patient must wait to get into an overburdened primary care physician, get a referral and then get into another physician. A patient will be dead by the time he gets diagnosed.

The inevitable response?

Cash-only doctors. Some doctors won’t accept this new insurance and work outside the system. So, people will pay into the health service, hate the waits and then, go pay cash for good care.

The rich will have good care while subsidizing everyone else. The middle class will be caught in a jam because the taxes will be so egregious they can’t afford anything, never mind a quick diagnosis. So they will be caught in government-mandated substandard care.

And the poor, who don’t pay into the system, will still misuse the system because they still won’t take care of themselves. And Medicare and Medicaid could have been expanded to help them as is.

But noooo. An overhaul had to happen. The government had to control health care.

If this diseased legislation doesn’t get revoked, America is going to go down the road of all disastrous socialized countries: chronic unemployment, disheartened and downwardly mobile middle class and an elite aristocracy for whom policy doesn’t matter.

In the liberal world that’s called utopia.

And by the way, a small board will decide what does and does not get covered under Obamacare. So, yes, death sentences will be handed down by the government. That too, is inevitable.

Auto Bailouts: Where Did We Go Wrong?

2010-04-13T11:31:00.003-05:00

This is likely to be a fairly long post, but I'll try to make it as readable as possible. The information here is condensed from a couple of research projects and a number of articles from the auto industry.

At one time, the American auto industry was king. Nobody in the world produced the quality of cars, with the technology and engineering at the prices that the United States was producing before and after World War II. That ended around the 1970s and 1980s. (It's hard to pinpoint an exact year, but for the purposes of this article, within a decade or so is accurate enough).

After 1980, the Japanese auto industry, which already had a foothold in the U.S. began to take off by leaps and bounds. At the same time, Americans were discovering the quality and drivability of European makes like BMW, Saab, Volvo, Mercedes and others. Around this time, foreign makes were jumping ahead of American manufacturers with regard to quality, engineering, technology and, especially, design.

Many auto industry insiders view the "beginning of the end" of the dominance of American auto companies to be the book "Unsafe at any Speed" by Ralph Nadar.

The book was written about Chevrolet's unique car, the Corvair. The Corvair was designed in the late 1950's by very forward-thinking GM engineers and designers. These people inside GM were looking at Porsche and Volkswagen and they wanted to see what they could learn from the popularity of those German cars. In terms of handling, reliability and technology, these cars were simple designs with sporty performance (at least Porsche was) and were noted for reliability in extreme weather and road conditions.

Chevrolet wanted to see what it could do with a similar concept. They wanted to create a rear-engine, air-cooled, rear-wheel-drive car. Unlike Porsche and Volkswagen, they wanted to make the car a little larger so that it could be used as both a sporty car as well as a small family sedan.

The Corvair was introduced in 1959 (as a 1960 model) and was Motor Trend's Car of the Year. It brought to market a number of firsts and innovations for an American car: A rear-engine air-cooled aluminum flat six cylinder engine with rear transaxle, four wheel independent suspension, with the front and rear suspension components each attached independently to the subframe. In terms of design, technology, innovation and concept, it was different in every way from every other car Detroit was producing and different than anything Detroit had ever produced.

A few years later, Ralph Nadar wrote his book in which he alleged that the Corvair was an unsafe vehicle. Nadar was an unknown "consumer advocate" looking for a cause, and he found it in the Corvair. He alleged that the vehicle was prone to turn over easier than other vehicles, that it was more prone to catch fire in a front end collision and that it was more likely to cause injury to passengers in a rear end collision than any other car.

These allegations were proven false. The government held hearings and then conducted its own safety tests of the car. Their findings: The car was as safe, or safer, than any other vehicle on the road. (The government actually found that the car was less likely to catch fire in a collision than other cars.)

The damage, however, had been done. Sales of the car dropped and it was phased out in 1969, to be replaced by the more conventional Chevrolet Vega, a car with all the disadvantages of a small car along with poor fuel economy and poor handling. The lesson the Big Three Automakers took from this episode of automotive history is this: Don't innovate. Just make your traditional vehicles like you've always done, and don't try anything new, exciting or innovative.

When Subaru introduced front wheel drive to small asian imports, (Saab actually beat them to it in the American market), the other imports followed. By the mid 1980s, Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Mazda had front-drive on most of their car models. The U.S. manufacturers did not follow suit until it became apparent that they were losing sales because of this feature. The same can be said of smaller, four cylinder, more fuel efficient models. Most other innovations and engineering breakthroughs after the 1960s came from either European or Japanese manufacturers. The Japanese in the 1980s and 1990s and later on the European manufacturers even began leading the way in styling. Today, if you take the nameplate off of a car and show it to the average consumer, most people would pick a foreign car to most domestic models.

All of this has led up to our current situation in which the government "had" to bail out two of the Big Three automakers.

I would be the last person to suggest that Ralph Nadar is single-handedly responsible for all of the ills of the auto industry. Over the past 40 years, there has been enough bad decisions, bad design and stupidity within the industry for a lot of folks to share the blame.

The question I have is, who is holding Nadar's feet to the fire? If industry insiders had lied and conspired in some way to bring an entire industry to its knees, no doubt those folks would be held accountable. Yet, Nadar is a darling of the left; a champion of the "little guy"; even a "green" presidential candidate. I doubt the American public is even aware of his role in the decline of the American auto industry (and by extension, American manufacturing).

While this post probably isn't as timely as it could have been (I recently ran across a series of articles that spurred this entry), I suppose the whole point is that I'm now doing my part to help people understand why we are where we are, today. Something as seemingly small and innocuous as a little book with a few little lies has had an effect that has spread to every American some 45 years later.

Now, use your imagination and look ahead to the next thirty or forty years. How do you think the lies currently being spread by O.B.A.M.,A., and Reid and Pelosi about health care and how much universal coverage will "save us" is going to affect America in the coming years?

Laws and Freedoms

2010-04-11T21:10:00.004-05:00

I missed a corner, yesterday. I was driving down the street and I drove right by my turn.

I was too distracted. While I was driving, I was listening to Fox Radio on the Satellite. Neil Cavuto was interviewing a socialist who was marveling at how great it was to force everyone to buy health insurance, and he kept commenting over and over that we are "an nation of laws." He also asked the question four or five times, "Would you rather live in a banana republic" where the law is corrupt?

I was screaming at the radio when I drove right by the street I was supposed to turn on.

Well, Mr Liberal-Spout-the-Democrat-Party-Line (I didn't catch who the guest was), it seems to me that we DO live in a banana republic where the law is corrupt. The new health care law was passed by a corrupt congress in a corrupt manner and it exempts those who created the law. How much more corrupt can you get?

But what really got me thinking was the idea of what makes America a great place to live. Or, maybe more accurately, what USED TO make America a great place to live, before Congress shredded the Constitution?

It isn't the fact that we are a nation of laws that makes America a great place to live.

What has made America great, what made America the place that people from other places in the world flock to the U.S., is not our laws, but rather our freedoms. People come here because we have, or rather HAD, a Constitution that protected us FROM the government and FROM the laws it wants to pass to deprive us of our freedoms.

Until this year, you could come to the U.S. and as long as you didn't do something to harm someone else, you could pretty much do what you wanted and the government was FORCED (by the Constitution) to leave you alone.

Now, for the first time in our nation's history, that is no longer the case. Simply by existing, simply by being here, you are now FORCED by the government to buy something, whether or not you want it.

Now, someone tell me .... how does that make us any better than those so-called "banana republics?"

Diplomat Lights Shoes on Fire

2010-04-07T21:43:00.003-05:00

Reports are still coming in as I write this, but the latest news reports are saying that a man who is a diplomat at the Qatar embassy in Washington, Mohammed al Modadi, attempted to light his shoes on fire on a flight from Washington, D.C. to Denver.

Apparently, and air marshall on the flight subdued the man, and he was detained and question once the plane landed. Early reports are also suggesting that he did not have any kind of bomb or weapon, but think he may have tried to light his shoes on fire to cover up a smell. (Smoking?)

Two questions come to mind.

First, with all the security at airports in the U.S., how does an Arab get through security with something to light his shoes with? And second, what are the odds this was some kind of test of airport security and airplane security? Maybe next time, we won't be so lucky.

Obama's First Asteroid?

2010-04-07T17:56:00.004-05:00

During a speech in which he tried "selling" Health Care Reform after he already signed it into law, O.B.A.M.,A.* mocked Republicans, Independents, TEA Party activist and the rest of us who don't like high deficits and debt, saying that when he signed the disastrous Health Care act, he looked around and didn't see any asteroids.

Well, look again, O.B.A.M.,A., the first one may be on its way...

The United States should consider raising taxes to help bring deficits under control and may need to consider a European-style value-added tax, White House adviser Paul Volcker said on Tuesday.

Volcker, answering a question from the audience at a New York Historical Society event, said the value-added tax "was not as toxic an idea" as it has been in the past and also said a carbon or other energy-related tax may become necessary.

Though he acknowledged that both were still unpopular ideas, he said getting entitlement costs and the U.S. budget deficit under control may require such moves. "If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes," he said.

* O.B.A.M.,A. = One Big Ass Mistake, America

Christians and Jews = Dhimmis Under Obamacare

2010-04-06T10:51:00.003-05:00

Opus (check out her blog at MAInfo) alerted us to the following:
Christians And Jews = Dhimmis Under Obamacare?

A dhimmi is a non-muslim in a muslim country who is treated as a second-class citizen, with punishing taxes, abuse, and no legal recourse.

Let’s Get this Straight:

President Obama
Vice President Biden
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Harry Reid
White House Staff
Cabinet Secretaries
Congressional Staff*
Amish
American Indian Tribes
Criminals
Scientologists
Christian Scientists
Muslims
Baptists
Catholics
Lutherans
Jews

Exempt from ObamaCare
Exempt from ObamaCare
Exempt from ObamaCare
Exempt from ObamaCare
Exempt from ObamaCare
Exempt from ObamaCare
Exempt from ObamaCare
Exempt from ObamaCare
Exempt from ObamaCare
Exempt from ObamaCare
Exempt from ObamaCare
Exempt from ObamaCare
Exempt from ObamaCare
NO Exemption
NO Exemption
NO Exemption
NO Exemption

*Congressional staffers who wrote ObamaCare, staffers working in a leadership office or for a Congressional committee all receive an exemption.

Duck and Cover

2010-04-06T10:31:00.004-05:00

By JOHN MCCORMACK (From the Weekly standard)

After signing the national health care bill, Barack Obama said he welcomed a campaign fight over the law. "Bring it on," he dared Republicans. He toured the country to boost the law's popularity. And on April 3, a Rasmussen poll showed that voters trusted Republicans more than Democrats on health care by a 16-point margin (53% to 37%)--a significant shift from just one month earlier when that number was essentially tied.

It looks like Obama's rambling 17-minute answer to a question about why we should be paying more taxes for Obamacare didn't do much to reassure voters about a bill they've consistently opposed for nearly a year. Other congressmen, like Paul Hodes of New Hampshire, have had a similarly difficult time directly selling the health care bill to their constituents. So, Politico reports, some Democrats, like Congressman John Boccieri of Ohio, have taken a different approach: hiding from their constituents.

Boccieri is not alone. He’s one of a number of House Democrats who’ve kept a low profile over the recess, a group largely defined by the level of political jeopardy they face this fall.

Like Boccieri, they tend to represent highly competitive seats. One of them, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.), has not held any events in Republican-oriented North Dakota to talk about health care, his staff acknowledged. This week, he’ll talk about Social Security.

The offices of other endangered members, ranging from veterans such as Reps. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) and Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) to junior members such as Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.) and John Salazar (D-Colo.), did not return messages asking about how they had promoted health care last week.

"Duck and cover" just might be a better motto for the Democrats than "bring it on."

Federalism Gone

2010-04-05T15:49:00.003-05:00

In an excellent article in The New Republic, Sean Wilentz takes to task those who wish to resurrect the pernicious doctrine of “nullification” to thumb their nose at the federal government on health care reform. Unfortunately, Wilentz conflates nullification with the idea of “states’ rights” in general:

Although not currently concerned with racial supremacy, the consequence of their doctrine would uphold an interpretation of the constitutional division of powers that would permit the majority of any state to reinstate racial segregation and inequality up to the point of enslavement, if it so chose.

Is opposition to health care reform at the state level leading to a resurrection of slavery? Really?

That much has been done in the last 100 years to undermine the 10th Amendment is not debatable. That the cause for this was considered just is equally true.

At the same time, in our zeal to improve the lives of American citizens, we have allowed the very concept of federalism to atrophy. Even debating the idea that the 10th Amendment can be redefined so that it can be made relevant in a 21st century industrialized democracy is seen as an exercise in futility.

There are few functions of government that are incompatible to the concept of federalism. While the idea of 50 nuclear regulatory commissions doesn't make sense, there is no doubt that the FDA (just to use one example) could be modified to be an agency that is overseen by a consortium of 50 States and that issued recommendations to the states instead of being an agency that wields the power it currently does. Nobody wants to see 50 OSHAs, but couldn't OSHA be another body that recommended standards to be adopted by states, instead of requiring them?

It is possible to take a hard look at federal agencies and discover a few responsibilities they currently enjoy that might be better performed by states? If it can be done without gutting them, why not try? Shouldn’t states have a lot more to say about how federal lands are used within their boundaries? Those lands are enormously valuable in many respects and yet the states have little say in the leasing and development schemes of the federal government. And it is long past time we take a very hard look at the Department of Education (with a $63 billion budget) and find a way to turn that department into an adjunct to local efforts at teaching our children rather than as a repository for bureaucrats to carve out their petty empires. With educational achievement at historic lows, it is evident that at least some of that money might be better given to states and local school districts to use as they see fit.

The concept of federalism today is a far cry from what the Founders envisioned. They may have written the Constitution for a small coastal republic of 7 million citizens, but were prescient enough to give their creation the revolutionary ability to change with a changing country. Yet the basic concepts, separations and the freedoms granted by the Constitution must remain in place. By deciding that we can simply toss portions of the constitution aside because they are inconsistent with our political ideology puts us in the same company as the former Soviet Union, China, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.

Now that we are a continental nation of 300 million – as diverse and vibrant a society that has ever existed -it is time to re-examine and reinvigorate the founding notion that power shared and dispersed among many is the bulwark against which no force can threaten our liberties. Resurrecting the ghosts of the past to discredit this notion should be met with the contempt it deserves.

A Trip Down Memory Lane

2010-04-05T14:02:00.001-05:00

Promises Kept

2010-04-04T21:11:00.000-05:00

Quote of the Day

2010-04-04T21:01:00.000-05:00

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

— James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

Robert Hall is Tired

2010-04-02T21:38:00.002-05:00

The following blog was posted on Robert A. Hall's blog on February 19, 2009. There are a couple of small points with which I disagree and a couple of things that could be updated. All in all, however, this is one of the best pieces I've read in a long time....

I’ll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I’ve worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven’t called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn’t inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there’s no retirement in sight, and I’m tired. Very tired.

I’m tired of being told that I have to “spread the wealth around” to people who don’t have my work ethic. I’m tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it.

I’m tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to “keep people in their homes.” Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I’m willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the leftwing Congresscritters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them—with their own money.

I’m tired of being told how bad America is by leftwing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and women’s rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Gay people of Iran, and the freedom of speech of Venezuela. Won’t multiculturalism be beautiful?

I’m tired of being told that Islam is a “Religion of Peace,” when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family “honor;” of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren’t “believers;” of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for “adultery;” of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur’an and Shari’a law tells them to.

I believe “a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin.” I’m tired of being told that “race doesn’t matter” in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it’s all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of US Senators from Illinois. I think it’s very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government.

I’m tired of a news media that thinks Bush’s fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama’s, at triple the cost, were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress, that picked over every line of Bush’s military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin with two years as governor for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever.

Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.

I’m tired of being told that out of “tolerance for other cultures” we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I’m tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore’s, andif you’re greener than Gore, you’re green enough.

I’m tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don’t think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I’m tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I’m tired of illegal aliens being called “undocumented workers,” especially the ones who aren’t working, but are living on welfare or crime. What’s next? Calling drug dealers, “Undocumented Pharmacists”? And, no, I’m not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic and it’s been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I’m willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person who can speak English, doesn’t have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military. Those are the citizens we need.

I’m tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people then themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years—and still are? Not even close. So here’s the deal. I’ll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we’ll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I’m tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers—bums are bi-partisan. And I’m tired of people telling me we need bi-partisanship. I live in Illinois, where the “Illinois Combine” of Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for years. And I notice that the tax cheats in Obama’s cabinet are bi-partisan as well.

I’m tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I’m tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

Speaking of poor, I’m tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn’t have that in 1970, but we didn’t know we were “poor.” The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I’m real tired of people who don’t take responsibility for their lives and actions. I’m tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I’m damn tired. But I’m also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I’m not going to get to see the world these people are making. I’m just sorry for my granddaughter.

Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts state senate. He blogs atwww.tartanmarine.blogspot.com

"I Don't Care about the Constitution"

2010-04-02T17:05:00.002-05:00

Confronted by an angry Tea Partier with a camera Thursday, an Illinois congressman said in front of several constituents at a town hall that he doesn't care whether the new health care law violates the Constitution, as some critics have claimed.

In a video posted on You Tube, Adam Sharp of the St. Louis Tea Party asked Rep. Phil Hare which part of the Constitution authorizes the government to mandate that all Americans buy a private product such as health insurance. The Illinois Democrat replied, "I don't worry about the Constitution on this."

"Jackpot, brother," Sharp said.

Hare cringed in disgust and said, "Oh please. What I care more about, I care more about the people dying every day who don't have health care."

It's a good thing that Rep. Hare (D-Village Missing an Idiot) cares so much more about all those people just falling over dying from lack of health care. It's getting so that you can hardly walk down the sidewalk in a typical American city without tripping over the people that are falling over, dead, from a lack of health care. Around here, we don't even push them over to the gutter any more like we did back in the Bush days. There's just too many of them.

Quote of the Day

2010-04-01T21:04:00.002-05:00

"My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."

-- Hank Johnson (D-Georgia), referring to Guam during a House Armed Services Committee Hearing.

Racism Accusation Reigns on O'Reilly

2010-04-01T11:32:00.006-05:00

I usually find Bill O'Reilly entertaining, funny and sometimes thought provoking. However, as I've mentioned on this blog before, O'Reilly seldom has the wits to match his guests. He's no dummy, but he's also not as clever or as brilliant as the people he brings on.

The left, of course, is in the "You're Racist" mode, trying to sell the already-passed Health Care System Demolition Program to the American people with the idea that Health Care reform is great because anyone who opposes it is racist.

On Tuesday, O'Reilly had two guests on his program that played the race card effectively. Al Sharpton was invited by O'Reilly to respond to a Miami Herald opinion article which charged that the "Tea Party had an element of racism running through it." Sharpton defended the statement by playing semantic games with O'Reilly, and O'Reilly obviously never caught on.

Sharpton cleverly rephrased what the opinion writer said and told O'Reilly that there were, indeed, "elements of racism within the TEA Party movement," a phrase using similar language but which changed entirely the meaning of the author. He then argued that if even two or three people out of millions of TEA Party activists are even the least bit racist, then the TEA Party has "elements of racism" within it. After making this point, which O'Reilly had trouble arguing, he slipped back and forth between "elements of racism within" the movement and "an element of racism running through" the movement, which implies that the TEA Party has an inherent racist element in it's fabric and that every member must be, to some degree, racist to be associated with the party.

While I think Sharpton is un-American, a Marxist, and uses the cloak of religion for credibility, (while he, himself has no problems with lying to achieve his own ends), he's certainly no idiot, and has a great command of the language. He knew what he was doing. O'Reilly was no match.

In a later segment, Alan Combs appeared. Combs seems like a smart enough fellow, but seems to view his job as spouting whatever the democratic talking points for the week are. If Gibbs and Pelosi and Reed were to come out tomorrow and say that the sky is red, Combs would be telling us all exactly what shade of red the sky is and how racist it is to deny that the sky is red.

This week, of course, the talking points are that ObamaKare is Great because the TEA Party is racist. It's a theme, apparently. And in the segment, which was not about race at all, Combs started his argument stating that (essentially) anyone who opposed ObamaKare does so because they don't like having a black man in the White House. Monica Crowley, his "co-guest' (if there is such a thing) started to argue with Combs, but O'Reilly was insistent that Combs have his say, even though he pointed out there is no evidence to the contrary.

I find these things very offensive.

In fact, I'm going to make a statement that many will probably disagree with, but here goes: I think that making the accusation of "racist" to someone for whom there is no real evidence of racism, is as offensive as using the "n-" word.

There, I said it.

Watch for more accusations of racism over the next few months (and probably years) as the left continues to try to peddle the idea that voting against democrats is a racist move. They will continue to tout the "fairness" of their programs against the "racism" of the Republican ideas.

Frankly, I think it takes a twisted sense of morality to define "fairness" as taking stuff away from the person who has worked hard to get it, in order to give it to the person who has not worked for it.

... but then again, I'm racist.

Is Violence on the Rise?

2010-03-30T22:15:00.002-05:00

In the 1960's and early 1970's, America erupted in violence over the Vietnam war. Civil and political unrest led to riots in the streets and on campuses all across America.

Images of the '60's and '70's come to mind when I see the political polarization in America today. At a book signing yesterday, Karl Rove was personally attacked by someone shouting that he "ruined America." Ann Coulter was unable to speak on a college campus in Ottawa, Canada because of students protesting and shouting. In California, students at a number of college campuses are rioting and are in an uproar over cuts to student aid programs. TEA party protesters have clashed (although, generally in a more civil manner) with members of Congress as well as others on the left over massive increases in the size and scope of the federal government.

There is no question that America is becoming increasingly polarized, politically. It also appears that the increased polarization is causing people to become increasingly frustrated, angry and that anger and frustration is, at times, coming out in the form of physical actions.

Is this getting worse? Is it getting out of hand?

I think that the answer to the first question is a resounding "yes." Is it getting out of hand? I guess that depends on your perspective.

Many Americans, and especially Americans on the right, feel that their government no longer represents the American people. And rightly so. Congress and obama have passed and signed into law a bill that is, by many accounts, unconstitutional, contrary to the will of the American people, and will destroy America, economically.

In all fairness, however, while the TEA party and others on the right are becoming increasingly vocal, for the most part (and there are a few exceptions), they have remained mostly civil. In spite of accusations of racism and (apparently false) accusations of name calling, TEA Party members and others on the right pretty much stick to arguing their point in logical, though sometimes loud, and civil manner.

Interestingly, some on the left are becoming increasingly vocal and increasingly violent, in spite of the fact that their party is in complete control at the moment. While some Democrats have complained about threats, a Republican party headquarters office in Michigan had a brick go through its window yesterday and Republican Senator Cantor had a bullet go through a window of his office.

I'm not going to condone or condemn the violence, itself. I'm not a violent person, but I can understand the anger and frustration behind some of this violence. I have expressed over the past week my own anger and frustration and said things that some would consider pretty extreme.

Furthermore, the founding fathers, themselves, advocated a violent overthrow of government if and when government abandoned the constitution and got out of control. (Are we there, yet?)

What I will say, however, is that I think this is going to get worse. obama is the most polarizing, controversial President ever elected into office. And this Congress has made it clear that it is going to push an agenda that it thinks is good for America in spite of the fact that the American people disagree. The American people DO NOT like what is going on. They believe that Washington is not listening to them, and furthermore, they believe that ObamaKare, The Stimulus Act and some of the proposed policies that have yet to become reality will lead America down a road to destruction from which we may never recover. (By the way, I happen to agree with that assessment).

Here is my question: If you believe that this government is out of control; if you believe that legislation being passed under this administration will permanently destroy America's economy; and if you believe that many of these laws and policies will be irreversible, what should your response be? Should you simply sit aside and watch this happen? Should you speak out, even if speaking out gets you labelled a racist and is ignored by the politicians in Washington? Should you work toward changing the government, even if that means a violent change may be the only way to fix things?

Whatever the answer, I believe that obama, Pelosi and Reid (who are blaming Fox News and Conservative Radio) are to blame for some of the violence and anger in our country. By ignoring the American People, by using illegal tactics to pass Obamakare, by creating underhanded deals and selling votes in Congress, by taking away our rights and freedoms, they have created an environment where more and more Americans are feeling that government is out of control and unresponsive.

And in spite of what I think and what you think, the American People are beginning to come to the conclusion that enough is enough.

Stupidak's Vote Paid For With Earmarks

2010-03-29T15:52:00.004-05:00

A government watchdog group called the Sunlight Foundation, has uncovered the "payoff" for Bart Stupidak and ten other House members who exchanged their vote on health care for earmarks. I looked all over the news for this and found nothing. A google search (using logical words from this story) also uncovered NO RESULTS in the "news" section. (This article was found under a blog search). If you wonder how they were able to get the needed votes to pass the "Health Care Theft of Freedom Act", now you know...

A day after Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and ten other House members compromised on their pro-life position to deliver the necessary yes-votes to pass health care reform, the “Stupak 11″ released their fiscal year 2011 earmark requests, which total more than $4.7 billion–an average of $429 million worth of earmark requests for each lawmaker.

The eleven members were the focus of high level pressure by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats because they threatened to vote against the health care reform bill, whichpassed the House on Sunday, March 21, by a seven vote margin. Granting earmark requests are one of the ways leadership can encourage members to vote their way.

Stupak requested more than $578 million in earmarks, including $125 million for a replacement lock on the Sault Ste. Marie, $25.6 million to build a federal courthouse in Marquette, Mich., $15 million to repaint the Mackinac Bridge and $800,000 to preserve the Quincy Mining Company smelter near Hancock in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula.

In 2009, the first year that members disclosed earmark requests, most members requested far more earmarks than were funded by the Appropriations Committee, which approves or denies requests. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Stupak’s funded earmarks–including those he requested jointly with other members–totaled $28.6 million.

Despite a newly enacted ban on earmarks to for-profit firms, Stupak requested a total of $52 million for companies in his district out of the $65.9 million he requested from the Defense Appropriations bill.

Troop Deaths Double In Afghanistan

2010-03-27T17:43:00.002-05:00

Here's something you won't see in the mainstream media ... unless you see it associated with George W. Bush "starting it."

The number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan has roughly doubled in the first three months of 2010 compared to the same period last year as Washington has added tens of thousands of additional soldiers to reverse the Taliban's momentum.

Those deaths have been accompanied by a dramatic spike in the number of wounded, with injuries more than tripling in the first two months of the year and trending in the same direction based on the latest available data for March.

U.S. officials have warned that casualties are likely to rise even further as the Pentagon completes its deployment of 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and sets its sights on the Taliban's home base ofKandahar province, where a major operation is expected in the coming months.

"We must steel ourselves, no matter how successful we are on any given day, for harder days yet to come," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a briefing last month.

In total, 57 U.S. troops were killed here during the first two months of 2010 compared with 28 in January and February of last year, an increase of more than 100 percent, according to Pentagon figures compiled by The Associated Press. At least 20 American service members have been killed so far in March, an average of about 0.8 per day, compared to 13, or 0.4 per day, a year ago.

The steady rise in combat deaths has generated less public reaction in the United States than the spike in casualties last summer and fall, which undermined public support in the U.S. for the 8-year-old American-led mission here. Fighting traditionally tapers off in Afghanistan during winter months, only to peak in the summer.

Premiums to Rise under ObamaCare

2010-03-27T16:37:00.004-05:00

(Source: Newsbusters)

It's no shock to rational, thinking people that healthcare legislation currently before Congress will do nothing to halt rising insurance premiums, but that the folks at the Associated Press would come to such a conclusion AND write about it is quite surprising.

There it was in a piece published Wednesday called, "FACT CHECK: Premiums would rise under Obama plan."

Readers are strongly encouraged to fasten seatbelts tightly, for they're about to enter what has to be an alternate universe (h/t Ed Morrissey):

Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.

Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say.

Shhh. Wait. It got better:

Listening to Obama pitch his plan, you might not realize that's how it works. [...]

An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of earlier Senate legislation suggested savings could be fairly modest.

It found that large employers would see premium savings of at most 3 percent compared with what their costs would have been without the legislation. That would be more like a few hundred dollars instead of several thousand.

The claim that people buying coverage individually would save 14 percent to 20 percent comes from the same budget office report, prepared in November for Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. But the presidential sound bite fails to convey the full picture.

The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they'd reach without the legislation.

Imagine that. Real facts about ObamaCare from the AP as the Democrats try to garner enough votes to get it passed.

Who'd have thunk it?

Unfortunately, this piece still didn't accurately reflect the entire truth as Ed Morrissey noted Wednesday:

The insurance policies of the future under ObamaCare would provide more comprehensive benefits, but that’s because ObamaCare would outlaw more modest plans. The federal mandates of ObamaCare would mean that healthy people would no longer have the choice of low-cost, high-deductible plans that encourage direct spending on routine medical issues, the exact kind of policies that realreform would emphasize. Obama and the Democrats want to force young, healthy people into committing more money into risk pools in order to keep premium increases down for others — in essence, subsidizing medical care for older, higher-risk pool members.

Despite this oversight, the AP did a pretty good job, especially as it referred to a speech Obama just made this week in a Cleveland suburb:

"You'll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into this pool," Obama said. "And that will lower rates, it's estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you're currently getting. That's money out of pocket." [...]

"Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which means they could give you a raise."

A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.

It could be a long wait.

Makes you wonder what might have happened during the presidential campaign in 2008 if the AP had spent its time fact-checking Obama's stump speeches rather than gushing and fawning over them.

Quote of the Week

2010-03-26T21:10:00.004-05:00

"This is a big fucking deal."

-- Vice President Joe Biden, referring to Michelle Obama's butt.

Calls For Special Prosecuter To Investigate Bribery

2010-03-26T20:16:00.003-05:00

Representative Darrell Issa (R)-CA, has called for a Special Prosecutor to investigate Representative Sestak’s (D)-PA claim of an Obama White House bribery attempt. Sestak alleges that the White House offered him a top federal spot to drop out of a Primary race with sometime Democrat, sometime Republican and full time Harpy, Arlen Specter.

The call for independent review should be welcomed by those who are disgusted by the back alley deals, tax cheating cabinet members, and a whole host of ethical issues that plague the Democrat Party and the Obama White House in particular. From payoffs to Senators to Viagra maintenance for Sex Offenders, The Left and Obama have forced America to accept and in the future even pay for things that are not only against the mainstream, but also unconstitutional. Given the way the Democrats ran roughshod over their own Party to force reluctant members to ignore their constituents, it makes sense to have someone outside of the Obama-Pelosi-Soros cabal ascertain just how much credence to place in Sestak’s claims.

Credibility is the real problem here. On the one hand, Obama denies any deal was offered, while Sestak insists it did. On the other hand both folks have shown a willingness to bold face lie to the American people and their constituents in passing a very controversial bill which violates the Constitution. The lies and deception surrounding the Democrats handling of this Bill demands an honest review. But who to do it?

Patrick Fitzgerald, when it was fashionable to be in the Special Prosecuting business, made a dog’s breakfast of the “Libbygate” investigation. Guided by partisanship and ambition (while never proven, it was rumored he was angling for an AG spot in a Kerry Administration), he was a lousy choice to investigate fairly. In the end nothing was ever proven about the initial allegations, and after Kerry’s defeat in 2004, interest dropped in the case. Libby was sideshow and once the big show ended, Election 2004, Fitzgerald went back to Chicago. Chicago? Imagine that.

First Whore to Be Honored By Nickelodeon

2010-03-26T19:10:00.002-05:00

The nappy-haired whore in the White House, Michelle Obama, will be "honored" at Nickelodeon’s 23rd Annual Kids’ Choice Awards Saturday for her “Let’s Move” campaign, designed to force people to eat and drink government-approved food and beverages.

The announcement was made by Nickelodeon Thursday. Reports are that Michelle Obama, with whom Nick has been working to advance government controlled dieting campaign (the network has donated $3 million for school programs related to it), has taped a message for the show. She will be too busy helping her husband turn America into a socialist state to appear in person.

No word on whether she'll ever take a stand against smoking and insist that the Muslim-in-Chief give up his habit of smoking cigarettes, joints and who knows what else in the White House.

Stupak thinks opponents are being uncivil

2010-03-25T21:07:00.003-05:00

Stupid Stupak thinks that something is wrong when people call him to complain about his hypocritical, lying behavior in Congress when he voted for an illegal, unconstitutional health care bill.

Stupid Stupak thinks that people calling to complain are uncivil when they call his office to register their disappointment with his disgusting vote.

Well, guess what, Stupak, you *(bleep)*ing moron. When you screw the American people, when you take away our freedoms, when you usurp the Constitution of the United States of America and turn us into the People's Socialist Republic of Amerika, some people might take offense.

After spending MONTHS ignoring Republicans and the American people, after thumbing their noses as the TEA party, after calling Sarah Palin all sorts of nasty names, the democRATS are now complaining about the American people being uncivil in their response to the illegal health care vote.

Really?

Just wait until the elections. You haven't even BEGUN to see uncivil yet, you bastards.

An Incoherent Rant

2010-03-25T18:16:00.002-05:00

This is not a post. This is not a logical argument. This is not a "political statement."

This is an incoherent rant.

I'm angry. Angry and frustrated.

People, we don't live in the United States of America, anymore. We live in the People's Socialist Republic of Amerika.

Earlier this week, our civil rights were violated by our leaders. The Dems and Muslim In Chief have decided that a socialist utopian society trumps the constitution.

The Dems in congress decided that the will of the people is insignificant to the advancement of a communist agenda.

The Dems in congress decided that the policies and procedures that have been in place in congress for over 200 years are no longer good enough, if they block the way of the communist manifesto.

And, consequently, we are no longer a free people.

If congress can do this, they can do anything. Congress now has unlimited power to do whatever the hell it wants to the people of the .... People's Socialist Republic of Amerika.

It's time for a revolution. I never thought I'd be saying this. It's time to take down the government and replace it. It's time to line up all the politicians, try them for treason, then line them up and shoot them all. Congress.... the Administration ... and the Supreme Court.

Every one of them.

Perhaps I wouldn't feel so strongly about this if there were someplace else I could go.

Until now, we've lived in the most free nation in the world. Europe has gone socialist. China is communist. The middle east is totalitarian. Much of the rest of the world is either socialist, communist or has some form of totalitarian government. The US was a safe haven for people who loved freedom.

That's gone.

Why didn't Pelosi and Reid and Obama and all the other *bleep*ing socialist America haters move to Europe. That's the model they love, anyway. Or China. Many of them would be more comfortable there than here.

If find it odd that Dems in Washington are surprised, shocked at the threats against them after the health care vote.

Well, what the *(bleep)* did you THINK would happen, you *(bleep)*ing MORONS? You violate our rights. You take away our freedoms. You yank our constitution out from under us.

You think we're just going to sit back and let you shove it hard and deep without us saying anything?

Well, FU, you bastards.

*Note: This post is an expression of anger and frustration and should in no way be construed as a threat toward any person or institution. I know you are monitoring this blog, because we no longer have freedom of speech. So, if you want me, come and get me.

Unconstitutional Procedure Will Be Used to Pass Unconstitutional Bill

2010-03-15T22:06:00.001-05:00

House leaders are preparing to ram through ObamaCare this week without a vote. Not only is the legislation unconstitutional, but the process being used to pass it is unconstitutional. The House is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate-passed version of ObamaCare passed in the House even though members would never directly vote on it. That would violate Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

Here is how the trick would work: In the House, the Rules Committee sets up the parameters for debate on legislation. House leaders are considering a complicated rule that would be structured so that a vote on the rule setting down the structure for the ObamaCare debate would allow the Senate’s version of health care reform to pass without a vote. First, there would be a vote on a rule. If the rule is passed by the House, then the House would vote on a health care budget reconciliation measure that is an amendment to the Senate passed ObamaCare bill. If that reconciliation measure passes, then reconciliation goes to the Senate and the ObamaCare legislation is deemed passed without a direct vote. The plan for the legislation is unclear. House leadership will either structure the rule to either immediately present ObamaCare to the President for his signature or they will hold the bill and deliver it only if the Senate passes a health care reconciliation measure. Either way, the Constitution and the American people are the losers.

Understand that this procedure is drafted in a way so your average American can’t understand it. The simple way to understand the situation is that the House is trying to pass a bill without a vote.

The Constitution states that the House and Senate are supposed to pass identical versions of a bill before the President can sign it into law. One of the reasons for this tricky procedure is to provide cover for moderate Democrats who don’t want to vote for the Senate-passed ObamaCare bill because it includes the federal funding of abortion.

Michael McConnell, Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, explains it this way at the Wall Street Journal today:

Democratic congressional leaders have floated a plan to enact health-care reform by a procedure dubbed “the Slaughter solution.” It is named not for the political carnage that it might inflict on their members, but for Rep. Louise Slaughter (D., N.Y.), chair of the powerful House Rules Committee, who proposed it. Under her proposal, Democrats would pass a rule that deems the Senate’s health-care bill to have passed the House, without the House actually voting on the bill. This would enable Congress to vote on legislation that fixes flaws in the Senate health-care bill without facing a Senate filibuster, and without requiring House members to vote in favor of a Senate bill that is now politically toxic.

McConnell is right. The Constitution says that:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.

If a branch does not vote on a bill, then that bill did not pass. This proposed procedure seems to be a clear violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution. There will be debate on the proper remedy for this constitutional affront, but all can agree that, at a minimum, House members can raise a constitutional point of order against the rule.

Liberals in the House understand that this process is hard to defend. Chris Frates at Politico writes about a leaked memo drafted by Assistant to the Speaker Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) intended to provide talking points to Democrat members when challenged on the unconstitutional process.

The Van Hollen memo also advised members to avoid talking about the process. “At this point, we have to just rip the band-aid off and have a vote — up or down; yes or no? Things like reconciliation and what the rules committee does is INSIDE BASEBALL,” the memo says. “People who try and start arguments about process on this are almost always against the actual policy substance too, often times for purely political reasons.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the House Rules Committee have come up with a very complicated procedure to get ObamaCare to the President’s desk without House members having to vote directly on the bill. This procedure is going to be debated extensively this week and may be the key issue as to whether President Obama signs legislation to provide a de facto government-run health care system.

Where Does the Tea Party go from Here?

2010-03-15T15:37:00.002-05:00

Earlier, I posted an entry regarding the Tea Party and the Constitution. I noticed when I entered my Key Words that I had never used "Tea Party" as a key word before. I made a mental note that the Tea Party will probably be with us for some time, now. I don't think it's going to go away anytime soon.

My question is this: Should the Tea Party become its own separate political party, or remain a loose, grassroots movement?

Pros: Clearly neither party is listening to the smaller government message, although the Republican Party is giving lip service to listening. It would give those with a genuine smaller-government message a voice in the political process and establish the movement more permanently.

Cons: Since most of the "smaller government" crowd tends to vote Republican, this would represent a genuine split of the Republican Party and could end up keeping Dems in power for decades to come. Furthermore, the same kind of corruption and dilution of message that is taking place in the other parties would likely take place in the New Tea Party as well.

My feeling at this point is that the Tea Party better serves America by being a voice on the outside looking in. We are more likely to affect change by saying "We'll vote for you if you tow the line. Otherwise, we'll vote you out."

What do you think?

Rendering the Constitution Irrelevant

2010-03-15T15:35:00.001-05:00

Throughout most of 2009, the liberal wing of the Democrat Party, the inhabitants of the White House, and the slavishly progressive mainstream media dismissed the Tea Party movement. They apparently assumed that the Tea Party was populated by the “fringe conservative” element of the Republican Party, which meant that their base was still solidly affixed. They apparently assumed that the Tea Party would not organize, which Tea Partiers have done – quite effectively. They apparently assumed that if they could force enough laws through by political will and curious expediency, the Tea Party would dissolve under the weight of new bureaucracies.

Moreover, leaders in the Republican Party foolishly believed that Tea Partiers would “return” to the fold after their period of wandering.

All of them were wrong.

Long before the Tea Party movement came into being, a quiet war was taking place in America. Popular talk-show host Glenn Beck has gained a huge following by connecting the dots between Cloward, Piven, Progressives, and the White House, which is symptomatic of the war. He has put together many pieces of the puzzle, and new pieces are fitting everyday. It’s no surprise he’s the darling of and inspiration for the Tea Party movement. He sees, and more Americans are beginning to recognize, that the goal of fanatical Progressives is not progress; their goal is rendering the Constitution irrelevant.

Progressives have long used the law, whether through the courts or the legislature, to force radical change. When propositions are repeatedly defeated in the public forum, progressives seek any and all alternative routes to push their agenda. They believe that they can effectively intimidate the American people, and strip them of their identity, through the weight of the law, regardless of Constitutional limits or safeguards.

Is it any wonder that they actively promote the flawed notion of a “living” Constitution? If the limits within the Constitution are malleable, they can be altered to expand the role of government on a whim. Is it any wonder that they slap the term “rights” onto initiatives or programs that are, in fact, privileges, thereby blurring the line between the two? They do not see rights as an inalienable, integral and inherent component of our humanity; rights, like “privileges,” are viewed as gifts of the State.

The more Americans they can convince of this twisted logic, the easier it will be to affect the kind of change informed Americans would otherwise reject.

The Impact of Insuring the Uninsured

2010-03-10T23:05:00.003-06:00

The democrats (and some Republicans) are insisting that every American MUST have health insurance, and that by providing health insurance to those who do not currently have it will save America billions of dollars a year.

This logic is based on the frustrating fact that many uninsured Americans who need health care, DO GET health care, but do not pay for it. Some of them show up and emergency rooms and skip out on the bill. Some go to private doctors and either arrange to get free care or promise to pay and then fail to fulfill that promise. Others go to free clinics or clinics operating to serve poor and uninsured people.

I'm going to go on record saying that insuring the uninsured will not save billions of dollars a year in health care costs, and it will not save millions of dollars a year in health care costs. In fact, it will likely cost us more than it will save us.

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that uninsured people (Americans and illegal aliens living here) run up 10 billion dollars a year in health care bills that they do not pay. I don't know if that number is even close, but for the sake of argument, let's just use that number.....

Now, someone has to make up for that 10 billion dollar loss. Who makes it up? Well, those of us who ARE insured do, basically. When someone runs up a bill and doesn't pay it, the cost of doing business for that provider has to be passed on, and it is (in essence) calculated into their cost of doing business. Their fees go up in order to cover those losses.

If we insure those people, the 10 billion dollar losses go away, and we don't have to make them up, right? Well .... not exactly. Instead of skipping out on 10 billion dollars in bills, that 10 billion dollars gets paid. And who pays it? The insurer. Whether it is a government-funded private program, an expansion of Medicaid or some other program, whoever is underwriting the insurance policy of those people will write checks for that 10 billion dollars. And where do they get the money? It has to come from somewhere, and it will come from the American Taxpayer. We who are paying the premiums for those previously-uninsured people will cover that cost by paying the premiums that are then used to pay those health care bills.

So, let me review and rephrase ..... The 10 billion dollars that was previously covered by insured Americans will be shifted and now be covered by taxpaying Americans. So YOU, if you're insured, will not pay for the costs of the uninsured. Instead, those costs will be covered by .... YOU, the taxpayer.

Now, doesn't that make you feel better.

Of course, those pushing for health care reform are going to argue that costs will decrease because the uninsured will no longer be going to expensive emergency rooms for treatment, but will instead seek treatment at "regular" doctor's offices.

Is that true, and does that really save money?

Well, yes and no.

It is likely/possible that those people who are now seeking care in emergency rooms will instead go to a "regular practice" to seek treatment. But let me ask: Does it REALLY cost that much less to treat a sore throat or a runny nose in a "regular" doctor's office than it does in an emergency room. Oh, I know the CHARGE is much less, but is the real COST that much different?

I would contend that the real cost for those people seeking treatment isn't going to be really different regardless of where they seek treatment. One of the big reasons the emergency rooms charge more for "basic" treatment is that they are covering the cost of the uninsured. (Yes, there are other reasons, too, including the fact that you are paying for a convenience). Once that increased cost factor goes away, the cost of operating an emergency room will go down. Furthermore, if a government-funded program starts flooding patients into private practices, and if reimbursements for these patients is less than for other types of insurance (like it is for Medicaid), the costs of "regular" private practices will go up faster than the revenues. Who will make up for these losses? The other patients. That would be you and me.

Those who support health care reform will also argue that health care costs will go down by insuring the uninsured because they will stay healthier and need less "serious" care because they will receive better preventive medicine.

I've already discussed how preventive medicine will cause costs to rise instead of decrease. But just to revisit that issue, in brief, visiting the doctor for hundreds of preventive care visits will increase health care costs overall, even if diseases and problems are diagnosed and treated earlier.

The bottom line is that anyone who tells you that they have a plan to save you money by creating a government bureaucracy and by cutting health care costs ... well, they are simply lying through their teeth.

Why Health Care Reform will NOT Lower Health Care Costs

2010-03-09T22:14:00.002-06:00

Everyone on the left is telling us that they can lower the total costs of health care will health care reform. They can lower the costs even more with a single-payor government-run system.

Everyone on the right is telling us that they can lower health care costs with tort reform and competition.

Who is right?

Well, I'm going to contend that neither side is correct. And I'm going to back it up.

Let me start by saying that nothing we can do (realistically) is going to lower the total cost Americans spend on health care. I'll go a step further and assert that, with a few rare exceptions, there is nothing we can do to lower the costs to individuals for health insurance premiums.

The problem with the health care reform rhetoric coming from the blow-hards out of Washington is that they don't understand what is causing health care costs to rise. Health care costs are rising primarily due to four factors:

1. Our population is getting older. Remember baby boomers? The largest birth rate ever in America occurred between the years 1945 and 1963. Those Americans are now between the ages of 47 and 65. At what age do you suppose we start having a significant increase in health care costs related to getting older? Generally speaking, the mid-40s to the early-50s. Furthermore, people are living longer. People in the 80s and 90s are no longer the rarity that they were 40 or 50 years ago.

2. Our population is getting fatter. The increasing size of Americans should be alarming us all. The CDC has an alarming graphic on the increasing size of Americans over the past 20 years. Look back even farther to the 1950s and 1960s, and the change is even more dramatic. Forty years ago, it was exceedingly rare to see someone under the age of 40 with type II diabetes related to obesity and a sedentary lifestyle. Today, Type II diabetes related to obesity and a sedentary lifestyle is becoming pandemic among CHILDREN under the age of 18, and rampant among adults over the age of 20.

3. The advancement of Technology. If you went to the doctor in the 1950s or 1960s with a problem that could not be easily diagnosed, one of two things was likely to happen. If the problem didn't seem all that severe or acute, you were probably sent home to see if it got worse or it got better. If it seemed particularly severe or acute, you might have undergone an exploratory surgery. Today, if you go to the doctor for an unexplained illness or pain, you are likely to have an MRI, a PET scan, a CAT scan, expensive blood tests, other kinds of imaging, ultrasounds, sonograms, etc, etc. Thousands and thousands of dollars worth of tests can be performed to diagnose your problem.

That technology has to be paid for. We have a "Cadillac" health care system, and that top-of-the-line system costs money. Do you want to return to the technology of the 1950's, or would you rather pay for the expensive tests?

4. Research and Development of Drugs and Medications: Drug companies are evil. At least that is the conventional wisdom. Yet, these drug companies save our lives. Research is expensive. Like technology, research and development has to be paid for, and the payment comes in the costs of new and better drug therapies. Prior to World War II, the only drugs we had were a handful of antibiotics, a few vaccines (small-pox, polio, etc), and a handful of other medications. Now, we have dozens of alternatives for any given ailment (including, should I add, ED?). These drugs are part of the reason that we have an ever increasing life-expectancy.

With all the railing against insurance companies, and government options, and the uninsured and rich doctors, the four items I've listed are the PRIMARY reason health care costs keep going up. Which one (or ones) of those four things do you want the government to step in and change (by force, if necessary) in order to drive health care costs down?

Dereliction of Duty

2010-03-09T17:12:00.000-06:00

Jobs must be our No. 1 focus in 2010. — Barack Obama, January 27, 2010.

So much for all that.

After a year of crisscrossing the country hawking his health care boondoggle, President Obama in his State of the Union address graciously took note of a separate, minor problem — America’s continued mass unemployment.

Obama’s first year in office saw the economy bleed millions of jobs and bottom out at the lowest labor force participation rate in 25 years. The official unemployment rate for December was 10 percent, a scary but misleadingly sunny number which failed to take into account the millions of Americans forced into part-time work or those who left the job market altogether in frustration and disgust.

Naturally, such dismal statistics got fair media play as 2009 wound to a close. So the president paid lip service to the jobs situation when he addressed Congress in January, 2010, promising to buckle down and concentrate on getting Americans back to work in the coming year. A lot of Americans, a lot of jobless Americans, likely gave a sigh of relief and uttered a hearty “it’s about time.”

Unfortunately for them, what came instead was a renewed frenzy to pass nationalized health care, and a corresponding neglect of the still dismal unemployment situation. The last weeks have seen 1) the release at last of the president’s own health care plan, 2) a much ballyhooed but still farcical health care summit, and 3) yet another public presidential plea (yawn) for the necessity of national health care. And now Obama is reportedly gearing up for yet another health care tour as his allies in Congress prepare to make their final push to pass this misbegotten legislation by Easter.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans continue to fill the unemployment lines or take menial work in order to have something on their resume besides a year-long gap of eating Cheetos and playing Guitar Hero. One can only conclude that Obama does not care whether you have a job or not, so long as he can force government health care down your throat.

Good News on the Jobs Front

2010-03-05T20:00:00.002-06:00

The numbers are out for February and 36,000 more jobs were lost last month.

And that's good news, according to Harry Reid (D-Nevada). The Senate majority leader thinks that more job losses is a good thing. Yes, to be fair, he is referring to the reduction in the increase in the jobless rate.

What Reid doesn't want you to know is that it is the policies of Obama and Congress and the push for more anti-business policies, taxes and regulations that is preventing the private sector from creating jobs.

A little over a year ago, Obama promised that the unemployment rate would not go over 8 percent because of all the "shovel-ready" jobs that would be created. Of course, those jobs did not materialize. According to to those who track such things, much of the so-called stimulus money has not been used to create new jobs, but rather the funds have been used to make up for a decrease in tax revenues because of the recession.

The unemployment rate is still officially near 10 percent and is likely to stay over 9 percent for the remainder of the year. However, the number of "discouraged unemployed workers" is increasing, and the "real" unemployment numbers are over 17 percent, and likely approaching 18 percent. (These numbers are considered "soft" and are hard to track.) Virtually all economists are suggesting that the jobless rate is the worst it has been since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and is not likely to improve in the foreseeable future.

The administration is touting the great "economic recovery," but those who are out of a job with no prospects in the future are not feeling the recovery.

Maybe in a few months, Harry Reid will join the ranks of the unemployed. Of course, with all the perks a former US Senator has, he won't feel the pinch in the same way other unemployed citizens do.

Doing the Wrong Thing

2010-03-02T13:59:00.002-06:00

We've all heard the democrats (and Republicans) tell us during the Health Care Reform debate/fiasco that "doing something is better than doing nothing." Last night, I even heard liberal writer Bob Beckel say that "doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing?"

Oh, really?

I'd like to take Bob out to a tall cliff and give him only two options: Do nothing or jump. Do you think he'd still say that doing the wrong thing is better than doing nothing.

Of course, like my hypothetical cliff, there are more than two options, but I'd like to focus on just the issue of doing the wrong thing versus doing nothing.

In regards to health care, let's make the assumption that passing ObamaKare is doing the "wrong thing." (A stretch, I know.)

Doing the wrong thing could cost the government (the taxpayers) trillions and trillions of dollars that we don't have. Doing nothing costs the government no more than we are spending now.

Doing the wrong thing will decrease the quality of care. Doing nothing maintains the highest quality care available in the world.

Doing the wrong thing will result in health care rationing in which those most vulnerable, particularly the elderly and the most ill, will likely be left out to pasture to die. Doing nothing continues the current system of rationing health care to those who work for a living and can afford health insurance, and leaving deadbeats to seek health care from ER's (where they still get treatment if they need it.)

Doing the wrong thing will force doctors out of business. Doing nothing maintains our current levels of health care providers, which is still inadequate in some areas and in some specialties, but is still better than most places in the world.

Doing the wrong thing throws the constitution out the window. Doing nothing keeps it hanging by a thread.

Got any more?

Is Huckabee a "Progressive"?

2010-03-01T09:40:00.003-06:00

Last night, during Mike Huckabee's program, he responded to a letter sent to him regarding his position on health care reform. He indicated that he favored an expansion of Medicaid to cover the uninsured, but that he differed with Democrats in that he wanted the insured to have to pay premiums. His position is that they should have a "vested interest" in keeping costs down and that helping to cover the premiums of a "government sponsored" program would do that.

I'm sorry, but isn't that a "progressive" position? By that, I mean, doesn't this move us one step closer to a government-run one-payor health care system?

Doesn't it also (in light of my two previous posts) violate the constitution?

Huckabee calls himself a conservative, and I'm sure in the current political environment, most others would brand him conservative, as well. However, the more I study government and how it is supposed to function (according to the framers of the constitution), the more I'm convinced that there is little difference between those who label themselves conservatives and those who label themselves liberals or progressives. They are all trying to increase the size and scope of government to suit their own ends ... not ours.

(While it's true that Huckabee is no longer holding political office), it is time to recall the whole lot of them, and find people who truly UNDERSTAND what the constitution says and are willing to take an oath to defend it.

Health Care and the Constitution

2010-02-28T21:46:00.002-06:00

Let me expand on yesterday's post. Yesterday, we discussed (I monologued) on the opinion that the federal government does not have the constitutional power or authority to use tax dollars to give to other nations, either for humanitarian aid or for other kinds of foreign aid.

I feel the same way about health care.

Where in the constitution is the authority granted to the federal government to provide health insurance to citizens (and non-citizens, for that matter)?

The tenth amendment to the constitution says simply:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In other words, any power not spelled out as being given to the federal government, is automatically given to the states or the people. If health care isn't a power granted to the federal government, then it doesn't have that power or authority. Am I wrong on this?

As far as I'm concerned, Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaKare are all unconstitutional.

Clearly, all of us who believe in the constitution should oppose ObamaKare in all its forms and any move toward Universal Health Kare. We should also oppose most of the Republican "alternatives," which also grant more power and authority to the federal government than the constitution allows.

As O'Reilly would say.... "Where have I gone wrong?"

The Earthquake and the Constitution

2010-02-27T21:37:00.003-06:00

Natural disasters are great opportunities for politicians to gain political points and to look good. That, of course, is one reason the left went after Bush so voraciously after Hurricane Katrina. Bush did nothing wrong, of course, during the storm or the aftermath of one of the worst Hurricanes to strike that area, but the left COULD NOT allow Bush to look good in the aftermath of a natural disaster. Particularly one that they wanted to blame on him.

Today (Saturday), Chile was hit by an earthquake of 8.8 magnitude, one of the strongest ever recorded. Obama couldn't wait to get out on the White House lawn and offer his support to Chile. Of course, we haven't actually DONE anything, yet, but we can't waste the opportunity for Obama to LOOK GOOD doing it.

THe point this brings up is one that I feel particularly strong about, and that is the limited powers of government. I just re-read the constitution (again). I have always felt that the federal government has never been given the constitutional authority to take money from the citizens of the US (in the form of taxes) in order to send that money to foreign governments (many of which are run by dictators and warlords, and are full of citizens who dislike us).

Of course, every president since World War II has done that, and I'm not sure how you challenge the constitutionality of that action. Once the precedent has been established, the Supreme Court seems to simply ignore the constitution and just go with the flow.

While it's very "nice" for the US to help out nations like Haiti and Chile and other nations who are in need. But I don't see that the constitution gives the President or Congress the authority to send our troops and our dollars to those nations, even for humanitarian reasons.

If private citizens want to give money to programs and organizations (such as the Red Cross) to assist these nations in time of need, I think that's entirely proper and appropriate. However, my tax dollars should NOT be used to help or build other nations. Our nation is BROKE. We don't have the money to be sending elsewhere.

Am I wrong? Am I heartless?

UN learns of Iran's plans to build Nuclear Warhead

2010-02-18T15:23:00.004-06:00

The AP is reporting today that the UN believes Iran is developing a nuclear warhead. Thank goodness, they've picked up on the news that has been common knowledge since two years before Bush left office. Here is the story:

The U.N. nuclear agency on Thursday said it was worriedIran may currently be working on making a nuclear warhead, suggesting for the first time that Tehran had either resumed such work or never stopped at the time U.S. intelligence thought it did.

The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency appeared to put the U.N. nuclear monitor on the side of Germany, France, Britain andIsrael. These nations and other U.S. allies have disputed the conclusions of a U.S. intelligence assessment published three years ago that said Tehran appeared to have suspended such work in 2003.

The U.S. assessment itself may be revised and is being looked at again by American intelligence agencies. While U.S. officials continue to say the 2007 conclusion was valid at the time, they have not ruled out the possibility that Tehran resumed such work some time after that.

Of course, now we have Obama in office, so nothing bad will happen to us. He's made us safer now than at any time in human history.

One Year Ago, He Saved the Economy

2010-02-17T13:51:00.001-06:00

Yes, one year ago, he saved the economy. Not Barack Obama, but rather, Blogger William Jacobson from Legal Insurrection. Or so he claims in his most recent, clever blog:

Barack Obama is claiming credit for "saving" the economy from a full-blown depression based on passage of the stimulus plan.

As with most Obama claims of success, Obama simply is exhibiting his prowess at using strawman arguments.

Obama compares where the economy is now, versus where the economy would have been on some hypothetical downward spiral assuming government did nothing. The "some say doing nothing would be better" paradigm is classic Obama.

But the alternative to the Obama stimulus plan and ramped-up budget deficits was not nothing, but a lowering of the tax and regulatory burdens on businesses and individuals which would have created real, economically sustainable jobs.

Instead, at most, we had subsidies to state governments to perpetuate completely unsustainable budgets drowning in union-related labor costs and pensions, and infrastructure projects notorious for cost overruns. No jobs were created or saved; unless of course the federal government is going to continue to subsidize these jobs indefinitely.

Obama confuses association and causation. Just because two events occurred (the economy did not go into a full-blown depression and Obama passed the stimulus) does not mean that the stimulus saved the economy. It is the intellectually lazy person's idea of logic, since it is much, much more difficult to compare what was to what could have been.

Now to the point of this post. Using Obama's logic, I saved the economy.

On February 20, 2009, I wrote The Last Bull Capitulates. In that post I wrote about the damaging effects of Obama deliberately talking down the markets to create a crisis atmosphere necessary to pass the stimulus (as in Rahm Emanuel's "never let a crisis go to waste"):

For the first time in my adult life [yes, h/t MO], I am convinced that we have a President who sees capitalism and markets as the enemy. There is no other explanation for the hyperbolic rhetoric Obama has used to create a sense of economic crisis far in excess of reality. We are in a recession, but as others have documented extensively, to compare the current economy to the Great Depression is damaging.

The result of my analysis was that the time had come to take some money off the investment table until Obama stopped talking down the markets (which he did in fact do in April 2009 when he needed to pass his expansive budget).

But I recognized that I probably was a counter-indicator, the so-called "last bull" capitulating, and that my capitulation probably signalled we had hit bottom:

There's an old saying on Wall Street that a bear market has not bottomed out until the last bull capitulates. News flash. The last bull has capitulated. Me....
I hope I'm selling at the bottom, because that will mean the markets and the country will have recovered from the worst economic policies since the Great Depression.

And so it came to pass.

I capitulated, and the economy did not sink into depression. Therefore, I saved the economy.

So please give credit where credit is due.

Unless, of course, we continue to stay at or near 10% unemployment, in which case it's all Bush's fault and there was nothing I could do about it.

More Tebow Ad Controversy

2010-02-09T11:33:00.002-06:00

This would actually be funny, if it weren't so sick and twisted.

Pro-Abortion groups, such as the NOW gang, have been looking for ways to criticize the Tebow/Focus on the Family Ad since they first heard it was going to air. Unable to see the ad, their initial criticism was focused on its "anti-choice" message.

Well, as you know from my previous post, we've now seen the ad and there is nothing objectionable in the ad at all. No "anti-choice" message. Just a pro-family, charming little scene.

But wait. Maybe there is something to criticize.

Let me ask you this: When you first saw the ad, was your response "I can't believe they would promote violence against women like that!"?

I didn't think so. I don't think that was the first response of the NOW gang, either. Still that is the approach they are taking. They are trying (unsuccessfully, I might ad) to convince people that the ad promotes domestic violence.

Frankly, I'll bet they were all sitting in a room with a TIVO or DVR and had to go back and watch the ad about 328 times to come up with that.

Imagine the setting: Angry, Ugly, pro-abortion women sitting around trying to find some way to criticize this ad. Finally, after hours and hours of watching the ad over and over, one of them says "HEY! I've GOT it! We can say it's promoting violence against women!"

"Are you kidding? Nobody in their right mind would ever fall for that."

"Sure. Look, they fell for Obama, didn't they? They believed he'd be a moderate. They fell for the stimulus package, didn't they? They'll buy it, I'm telling you!"

"Well..... maybe ..... nah."

Laughter around the table.

"Anybody got any better ideas?"

(Silence)

"Okay, domestic violence, it is."

Super(bowl) Ad

2010-02-08T12:29:00.003-06:00

We all finally got to see the Tim and Pam Tebow ad from Focus on the Family. My first thought after seeing the ad is "What is the fuss all about?"

The ad never mentions abortion, nor does it make an argument for a pro-life position. It simply says that Pam "almost lost" Tim several times (it never says how, why or even that it was during pregnancy), and it says that she still worries about him. The ad is short, clever, VERY pro-family and absolutely NOT controversial in any way, shape or form.

This whole controversy is about lefties who cannot handle a MAINSTREAM religious organization sponsoring an ad of any kind that might influence people in any way.

The group Focus on the Family, while not perfect, is one of the most respectable Christian organizations around. With so many groups and their leaders getting caught in one scandal or another, Focus on the Family has maintained integrity and character throughout their history. James Dobson, the founder has done a superb job of creating a resource for families, marriages and parents, as well as people struggling with personal and spiritual problems such as alcoholism, homosexuality, drug abuse, pornography and other personal and societal problems.

Well done, Focus on the Family. Well done.

Racist Sign at NBC?

2010-02-05T22:20:00.002-06:00

How do you suppose people would respond if the above sign were posted "in honor of Black History Month" in our schools, homes or place of business?

I don't know about you, but I can see where this sign MIGHT be considered racist.

This sign actually appeared yesterday in the cafeteria at NBC studios.

NBC.

The owners of MSNBC.

The leftist/socialist/enlightened NBC.

The ones who call everyone who disagrees with Obama a racist.

THAT NBC.

So is it racist or is it not? I can't say for sure, but the sign was actually created by a black cook at the cafeteria, who apparently wanted to do her part. In an interview, she seemed genuinely shocked that anyone would consider the sign offensive.

I don't know if it's racist or not, but I will say this .... that's a lot of food for $7.50.

The Stimulus is Working

2010-02-05T20:20:00.003-06:00

America received two bits of economic news today. The unemployment rate, which has risen every month since Obama took office, actually dropped today. The rate went from 10 percent to 9.7 percent in January. Meanwhile, the same report says that America lost 20,000 jobs in the same period.

Now, that's interesting. How can that be?

Well it seems that while the "official" unemployment rate dropped, that number does not include those who have given up looking for work. Economists are telling us that those who have lost their jobs since Obama took office have been unemployed four times longer than during a normal recession. Because of that, those who have given up looking, the "desperate unemployed," has continued to rise. In fact, the "real" unemployment rate (current numbers not available, but above 17 percent) is higher than at any time since the Great Depression of the 1930's.

The administration is "pleased" with the numbers. At least, that's the official line. The drop in unemployment, according the administration, is proof that the Generational Theft Act (a.k.a. the Stimulus) is working.

I'll have to agree. These numbers are, indeed, a direct result of Obama's policies, including last year's spending spree.

Quote of the Day

2010-02-05T10:02:00.001-06:00

This one also comes from "The Other McCain"...

"Olbermann? He's about as popular as syphilis."

...In A Handbasket

A Letter to the Editor

One Month to Act

Violence Erupts at Illegal Immigration Rally

Everythings Amazing & Nobodys Happy

What Would You Do?

Is Arizona's New Immigration Law Constitutional?

Health Care Reform Lawsuit...What's Your Opinion?

Jobless Rate Rises

Quote of the Day

Doctor Shortages On the Way

Auto Bailouts: Where Did We Go Wrong?

Laws and Freedoms

Diplomat Lights Shoes on Fire

Obama's First Asteroid?

Christians and Jews = Dhimmis Under Obamacare

Opus (check out her blog at MAInfo) alerted us to the following:Christians And Jews = Dhimmis Under Obamacare?

Duck and Cover

Federalism Gone

A Trip Down Memory Lane

Promises Kept

Quote of the Day

Robert Hall is Tired

"I Don't Care about the Constitution"

Quote of the Day

Racism Accusation Reigns on O'Reilly

Is Violence on the Rise?

Stupidak's Vote Paid For With Earmarks

Troop Deaths Double In Afghanistan

Premiums to Rise under ObamaCare

Quote of the Week

Calls For Special Prosecuter To Investigate Bribery

First Whore to Be Honored By Nickelodeon

Stupak thinks opponents are being uncivil

An Incoherent Rant

Unconstitutional Procedure Will Be Used to Pass Unconstitutional Bill

Where Does the Tea Party go from Here?

Rendering the Constitution Irrelevant

The Impact of Insuring the Uninsured

Why Health Care Reform will NOT Lower Health Care Costs

Dereliction of Duty

Good News on the Jobs Front

Doing the Wrong Thing

Is Huckabee a "Progressive"?

Health Care and the Constitution

The Earthquake and the Constitution

UN learns of Iran's plans to build Nuclear Warhead

One Year Ago, He Saved the Economy

More Tebow Ad Controversy

Super(bowl) Ad

Racist Sign at NBC?

The Stimulus is Working

Quote of the Day

Opus (check out her blog at MAInfo) alerted us to the following:
Christians And Jews = Dhimmis Under Obamacare?